This is an archive of past discussions about User:Aua. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
Haha, thanks, though I take a great deal more pride in the featured article than both the FLs put together - now that I know the experience of both, I have to say that writing a FA is much, much harder work than writing a featured list. Hopefully the one I have at FAC right now will pass, though right now it's in trouble to comprehensiveness and prose. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood03:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
joining the ranks of the admins
Create, improve images
Please see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. People also ask for images to be created. From that page: "We also create new drawings, diagrams and maps when requests are made to do so. Interested in helping out? Then go to the Images to improve page, and start improving. You can also add your entry to Wikigraphist abilities and yourself to Category:Wikigraphist." There are wikilinks in those sentences too. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Akbank
Dear Sir,
My name is Murat Gollu and I am the head of Corporate Communication Department of Akbank. I would like to edit Akbank pages in Wikipedia. Yesterday I made some changes in the pages. However as i understood it is not accepted.
I have one more question. I would like to put a photo of Mr.Erol Sabancı to "Erol Sabancı" pages however i couldn't do it. Could you kindly help me?
You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfrtalk18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral.
If I can not remove this section from the page I began (Osman semerci), I would like to remove this page altogther. The person who the page is about does not wish to have the 'controversy' section about him on the page, but understands that a wikipedia entry is an un-biased view which any user can add to/edit. Please can you let me know how to do this, or remove the page for me.
thanks,
Thanks for this Λua∫, it is unfortunate, but it has been requested by the person that it is removed. If it is posted again, by someone else, then that is not my problem. Thanks again.
Done Per your request, and that of Lawrence atkins, I have deleted the page under the G7 criteria. Thanks for the clarification; with both authors concurring, I have no problem with the deletion. Best, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the message. i am having trouble editing at the moment, as this is my first time creating a page. how can i insert images? like the logo of the organisation??
thanks for your help before. i have a bit of a problem because i am new to the world wikipedia and realise the stringent, unbiased ways articles should be produced. I am an employee of the charity Kidney Research UK and would like to keep my entry on wikipedia, but the page i created apparently looks too much like an advertisement. please could you give me some idea of how an article should be written so i can keep an entry for the charity. Alternatively could you help me edit the page so it fits with editorial policy?